Back to search results
NCT05733221

3D Printed Models for Mandibular Fracture Repair

Enrolling by Invitation
NAAges 18–80InterventionalTreatment
University of Cincinnati
~100 participants
Updated 2025-06-03 on ClinicalTrials.gov
What's tested:3D Printed Model

At a glance

Recruiting sites
0 of 2 listed sites are recruiting right now
RecruitingSuspended, closed, or not yet open
What they're measuring
Total time in the OR
Measured over Total procedural time
+1 more outcome measured

Conditions

Mandible Fracture
Maxillofacial Trauma

Explore related trials

Mandible Fracture

Where it's being run

2 sites across 1 states
Ohio2

Study leadership

  • Deepak G Krishnan, DDS · PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR · University of Cincinnati

Who to contact

This trial hasn't published a contact. View it on ClinicalTrials.gov

Do you actually qualify for this trial?

Add a private profile and we'll compare every criterion below against your situation — and tell you which ones are met, uncertain, or excluding.

Check eligibility for this trial ~2 min · HIPAA-protected · delete anytime
Eligibility criteria

Inclusion

Patients who have received either a cone beam or conventional CT
Admitted through University of Cincinnati Hospital and Medical Center emergency department
All isolated mandible fractures referred to University of Cincinnati Hospital Oral \& maxillofacial surgery clinic
Surgical team members from the division of plastic and otolaryngology

Exclusion

Patient \< 18 years of age
Patients who have neither cone beam nor conventional CT
Patients requiring a repeat procedure
Unexpected exposure of hardware

What this trial measures

  • Total time in the ORTotal procedural time

    Time in the OR considered critical part of the procedure by the Oral \& Maxillofacial Surgery Staff

  • Subjective outcome to surgeonUp to 2 days post-procedure

    Surgeon overall satisfaction with utilizing the 3D generated model, obtained via Likert Scale Questions completed post-operatively. The investigators are going to use the Likert questions to develop a numerical scoring system and report that data as "raw" Likert scores. Likert questions and conversion of specialists' responses to Anatomic Model Utility Points (AMUPs). Responses of "strongly disagree", "disagree", and "neutral" were assigned 0 AMUP points. Responses to preprocedural confidence are assigned negative points, to effectively subtract the impact of the anatomic model post- versus pre-procedure. The maximum AMUP for each patient was 500.